Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Franklin v. Butler

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 18, 2009

ROBERT FRANKLIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BUTLER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Three of his motions are pending before the court.

I. Motion To Appoint Counsel (Docket No. 46)

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at this time. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

II. Motion To Extend Time In Which To Serve Interrogatories (Docket No. 44)

Plaintiff seeks additional time in which to propound interrogatories to the defendants. In support of this request, he alleges that he will be unable to draft interrogatories until he receives documents he has sought in an earlier discovery request. He has made no attempt to demonstrate why he is unable to draft interrogatories without the unidentified documents he seeks. He has not shown good cause for the additional time.

III. Motion For A Protective Order (Docket No. 45)

Plaintiff makes a number of requests concerning his upcoming deposition: that it be taken at a different time, that its scope be limited to matters with "relevancy to the plaintiff's claim"; that the deposition be sealed; and that only the parties and counsel be permitted to attend.

Most of these requests are moot, for the time set for the deposition has passed. Moreover, plaintiff has not explained why the deposition should be sealed, assuming it is lodged with this court. See Local Rules 39-140. 39-141.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (docket No. 46) is denied;

2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time in which to conduct discovery (docket no. 44) is denied; and

3. Plaintiff's request for a protective order (docket no. 45) is denied.

20090518

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.